Xen users - Jul 2011 - New to Xen, looking for advice regarding system configuration

My main purpose would be to support my software development and consulting work.
So I need to be able to run various OS''s.  I don''t develop
games so no need for any fancy graphics.  I''m used to the limitations
of virtual machines (use VMWare a lot for dev purposes) and I''m fairly
sure Xen can do everything I need.

I expect to have 2-3 virtual machines running most of the time, possibly 2
working hard (for example restoring a gig+ database backup on one while
programming/doing other tasks on another).  I''ll be purchasing 2
identical machines one as a backup, so I don''t need any extra
''robustness'' that a server motherboard/system would provide. 
Which leads into the following question.

Would it make sense to spend extra bucks on a multi processor motherboard rather
than going with a single Core i7 or the like?  I think there are i/o bandwidth
benefits with multi processor boards, however due to a lot of database grinding
I tend to do I suspect that disk i/o is a limiting factor in my case which
I''ll try to deal with somewhat by RAID0 over 4-5 fast drives.  I
don''t need any redundancy as all variable data (code and the like) is
on remote servers and already fully backed up.

Do folks generally install X11 on Dom0 so they can get a gui VNC/remote desktop
into Windows DomU machines?  Or is there some other mechanism available?

Any other system configuration suggestions are appreciated. 

Thanks!

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

My main purpose would be to support my software development and consulting work.
So I need to be able to run various OS''s.  I don''t develop
games so no need for any fancy graphics.  I''m used to the limitations
of virtual machines (use VMWare a lot for dev purposes) and I''m fairly
sure Xen can do everything I need.

I expect to have 2-3 virtual machines running most of the time, possibly 2
working hard (for example restoring a gig+ database backup on one while
programming/doing other tasks on another).  I''ll be purchasing 2
identical machines one as a backup, so I don''t need any extra
''robustness'' that a server motherboard/system would provide. 
Which leads into the following question.

Would it make sense to spend extra bucks on a multi processor motherboard rather
than going with a single Core i7 or the like?  I think there are i/o bandwidth
benefits with multi processor boards, however due to a lot of database grinding
I tend to do I suspect that disk i/o is a limiting factor in my case which
I''ll try to deal with somewhat by RAID0 over 4-5 fast drives.  I
don''t need any redundancy as all variable data (code and the like) is
on remote servers and already fully backed up.

Do folks generally install X11 on Dom0 so they can get a gui VNC/remote desktop
into Windows DomU machines?  Or is there some other mechanism available?

Any other system configuration suggestions are appreciated. 

Thanks!

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Braindead <Braindead@diablops.com>
wrote:
> My main purpose would be to support my software development and consulting
work.  So I need to be able to run various OS''s.  I don''t
develop games so no need for any fancy graphics.  I''m used to the
limitations of virtual machines (use VMWare a lot for dev purposes) and
I''m fairly sure Xen can do everything I need.
>
You haven''t said why you want to move away from vmware. If we know
what your priorities are, we might be able to give better advice. For
example, if you''re used to vmware-style GUI, but want an open-source
license, XCP might be a better choice. But it you want something you
can tinker, or use bleeding-edge technology, then starting with a
distro that includes Xen would be a better choice.
> I expect to have 2-3 virtual machines running most of the time, possibly 2
working hard (for example restoring a gig+ database backup on one while
programming/doing other tasks on another).  I''ll be purchasing 2
identical machines one as a backup, so I don''t need any extra
''robustness'' that a server motherboard/system would provide.
 Which leads into the following question.
>
> Would it make sense to spend extra bucks on a multi processor motherboard
rather than going with a single Core i7 or the like?  I think there are i/o
bandwidth benefits with multi processor boards,
Is there?

IIRC the main selling point of server-grade motherborad used to be the
ability to use ECC RAM. But now some motherboards for i7 support ECC
RAM and SATA III.
> however due to a lot of database grinding I tend to do I suspect that disk
i/o is a limiting factor in my case which I''ll try to deal with
somewhat by RAID0 over 4-5 fast drives.  I don''t need any redundancy as
all variable data (code and the like) is on remote servers and already fully
backed up.
... which brings another point. If you know you''re I/O-starved anyway,
why not use SSD? Pure SSD implementation can easily give 10-100x IOPS
of HDD. And since you say you''ll have an identical machine as backup,
if you''re worried about SSD lifetime, you can have HDD on the backup
machine.

Another option would be using SSD as cache, with something like
facebook''s flashcache. This setup would reduce the possibility of data
loss (since SSD will only be cache), and have the additional benefit
of higher capacity (compared to pure SSD setup), but is also more
complex and (depending on how you look at it) "experimental".
>
> Do folks generally install X11 on Dom0 so they can get a gui VNC/remote
desktop into Windows DomU machines?  Or is there some other mechanism available?
Generally speaking you don''t need full-blown X desktop on dom0. It can
be headless with "minimum" software installed. VNC console of domU is
provided by QEMU, not by X desktop on dom0.

-- 
Fajar

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

I can''t speak much about Xen... yet!  But I can give "some"
insight on hardware.

>> Would it make sense to spend extra bucks on a multi processor
motherboard rather than going with a single Core i7 or the like?  I think there
are i/o bandwidth benefits with multi processor boards,

the Intel i7 processor is not single core, it is 4 - 6 cores, each
core is hyper-threaded so the OS will see 8 - 12 processors!  i7 is by
far the best processor to get for a workstation and will more than
handle multiple VMs.  If you''re planning to run 2 - 3 VMs, you could
give each VM multiple [logical] processors and still have a few left
over for the VM host.  If you go with an i7, I think your hard disk
read/write will be the bottleneck.

--
Tim Bearden
OpenSource / Linux Enthusiast


On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Fajar A. Nugraha <list@fajar.net>
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Braindead <Braindead@diablops.com>
wrote:
>> My main purpose would be to support my software development and
consulting work.  So I need to be able to run various OS''s.  I
don''t develop games so no need for any fancy graphics.  I''m
used to the limitations of virtual machines (use VMWare a lot for dev purposes)
and I''m fairly sure Xen can do everything I need.
>>
>
> You haven''t said why you want to move away from vmware. If we know
> what your priorities are, we might be able to give better advice. For
> example, if you''re used to vmware-style GUI, but want an
open-source
> license, XCP might be a better choice. But it you want something you
> can tinker, or use bleeding-edge technology, then starting with a
> distro that includes Xen would be a better choice.
>
>> I expect to have 2-3 virtual machines running most of the time,
possibly 2 working hard (for example restoring a gig+ database backup on one
while programming/doing other tasks on another).  I''ll be purchasing 2
identical machines one as a backup, so I don''t need any extra
''robustness'' that a server motherboard/system would provide.
 Which leads into the following question.
>>
>> Would it make sense to spend extra bucks on a multi processor
motherboard rather than going with a single Core i7 or the like?  I think there
are i/o bandwidth benefits with multi processor boards,
>
> Is there?
>
> IIRC the main selling point of server-grade motherborad used to be the
> ability to use ECC RAM. But now some motherboards for i7 support ECC
> RAM and SATA III.
>
>> however due to a lot of database grinding I tend to do I suspect that
disk i/o is a limiting factor in my case which I''ll try to deal with
somewhat by RAID0 over 4-5 fast drives.  I don''t need any redundancy as
all variable data (code and the like) is on remote servers and already fully
backed up.
>
> ... which brings another point. If you know you''re I/O-starved
anyway,
> why not use SSD? Pure SSD implementation can easily give 10-100x IOPS
> of HDD. And since you say you''ll have an identical machine as
backup,
> if you''re worried about SSD lifetime, you can have HDD on the
backup
> machine.
>
> Another option would be using SSD as cache, with something like
> facebook''s flashcache. This setup would reduce the possibility of
data
> loss (since SSD will only be cache), and have the additional benefit
> of higher capacity (compared to pure SSD setup), but is also more
> complex and (depending on how you look at it) "experimental".
>
>>
>> Do folks generally install X11 on Dom0 so they can get a gui VNC/remote
desktop into Windows DomU machines?  Or is there some other mechanism available?
>
> Generally speaking you don''t need full-blown X desktop on dom0. It
can
> be headless with "minimum" software installed. VNC console of
domU is
> provided by QEMU, not by X desktop on dom0.
>
> --
> Fajar
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 21:08:37 +0700 "Fajar A. Nugraha"
<list@fajar.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Braindead <Braindead@diablops.com>
> wrote:
> > My main purpose would be to support my software development and
> > consulting work.  So I need to be able to run various OS''s.
 I
> > don''t develop games so no need for any fancy graphics.
 I''m used to
> > the limitations of virtual machines (use VMWare a lot for dev
> > purposes) and I''m fairly sure Xen can do everything I need.
> >
> 
> You haven''t said why you want to move away from vmware. If we know
> what your priorities are, we might be able to give better advice. For
> example, if you''re used to vmware-style GUI, but want an
open-source
> license, XCP might be a better choice. But it you want something you
> can tinker, or use bleeding-edge technology, then starting with a
> distro that includes Xen would be a better choice.
I use VMWare workstation at work, I use virtualbox on Linux a bit.  I only
mention VMWare to note that I''m used to the concepts of VM''s. 
I prefer running *nix, Gentoo to be precise.

My home server is running a ton of services (subversion, mail, http, backup,
router, ossec, nagios, dns, dhcp..etc) and for sanity''s sake
I''d like to break that up into multiple servers.  I also need a few
windows boxes (various configs, versions).

Goal is to consolidate things into one box, and have a complete backup box as
well.  Thus virtualization.  The XEN ''near bare metal''
performance is what I''m interested in, and definitely into optimizing
every aspect I can which is why I use a source distro.

> > I expect to have 2-3 virtual machines running most of the time,
> > possibly 2 working hard (for example restoring a gig+ database
> > backup on one while programming/doing other tasks on another).
> >  I''ll be purchasing 2 identical machines one as a backup, so
I
> > don''t need any extra ''robustness'' that a
server motherboard/system
> > would provide.  Which leads into the following question.
> >
> > Would it make sense to spend extra bucks on a multi processor
> > motherboard rather than going with a single Core i7 or the like?  I
> > think there are i/o bandwidth benefits with multi processor boards,
> 
> Is there?
Not sure, which is why I''m askin ;-)
> IIRC the main selling point of server-grade motherborad used to be the
> ability to use ECC RAM. But now some motherboards for i7 support ECC
> RAM and SATA III.
Many include system monitoring and alerting capabilities in the BIOS (or at
least used to, it''s been a while since I''ve worked on server
grade hardware).

> > however due to a lot of database grinding I tend to do I suspect
> > that disk i/o is a limiting factor in my case which I''ll try
to
> > deal with somewhat by RAID0 over 4-5 fast drives.  I don''t
need any
> > redundancy as all variable data (code and the like) is on remote
> > servers and already fully backed up.
> 
> ... which brings another point. If you know you''re I/O-starved
anyway,
> why not use SSD? Pure SSD implementation can easily give 10-100x IOPS
> of HDD. And since you say you''ll have an identical machine as
backup,
> if you''re worried about SSD lifetime, you can have HDD on the
backup
> machine.
Well, i''d love to...but ;-) My current dev machine has 2TB of databases
sitting on it that I may need access to at any given time.  I could move them as
needed onto SSD however that would take a lot of time much more than just
accessing them directly on the slower media.  Might be doable as some sort of
hybrid setup (some SSD''s, some regular HD''s) however that
would likely just confuse me.
 
> Another option would be using SSD as cache, with something like
> facebook''s flashcache. This setup would reduce the possibility of
data
> loss (since SSD will only be cache), and have the additional benefit
> of higher capacity (compared to pure SSD setup), but is also more
> complex and (depending on how you look at it) "experimental".
Isn''t that what the ''hybrid'' drives are? 
I''d think those would work outta the box, should look just like a
regular drive to the OS I''d think?
> > Do folks generally install X11 on Dom0 so they can get a gui
> > VNC/remote desktop into Windows DomU machines?  Or is there some
> > other mechanism available?
> 
> Generally speaking you don''t need full-blown X desktop on dom0. It
can
> be headless with "minimum" software installed. VNC console of
domU is
> provided by QEMU, not by X desktop on dom0.
Ah, one question that has a simple answer ;-)

Thanks for the thoughts and suggestions.  I know hardware config is complex, and
depends highly on how things are used...

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 09:23:58 -0500 Tim Bearden <tim.bearden@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I can''t speak much about Xen... yet!  But I can give
"some" insight
> on hardware.
> 
> 
> >> Would it make sense to spend extra bucks on a multi processor
> >> motherboard rather than going with a single Core i7 or the like?
> >> I think there are i/o bandwidth benefits with multi processor
> >> boards,
> 
> 
> the Intel i7 processor is not single core, it is 4 - 6 cores, each
> core is hyper-threaded so the OS will see 8 - 12 processors!  i7 is by
> far the best processor to get for a workstation and will more than
> handle multiple VMs.  If you''re planning to run 2 - 3 VMs, you
could
> give each VM multiple [logical] processors and still have a few left
> over for the VM host.  If you go with an i7, I think your hard disk
> read/write will be the bottleneck.
Indeed, I meant single processor.  I''m running an i7 on a windows
machine here, with 3 VM''s (running under VMWare Workstation) and I can
bring windows to it''s knees by hammering the disks.   Definitely disk
i/o is an issue.

I''m tempted to try SAS, however much of what I''ve read about
that seems to be ''it might help it might not, depends on usage
patterns...etc..'', not too sure I want to try one and then the other.

Maybe I should wait for 2TB SSD drives...for a reasonable price ;-)

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Braindead <Braindead@diablops.com>
wrote:
>> You haven''t said why you want to move away from vmware. If we
know
>> what your priorities are, we might be able to give better advice. For
>> example, if you''re used to vmware-style GUI, but want an
open-source
>> license, XCP might be a better choice. But it you want something you
>> can tinker, or use bleeding-edge technology, then starting with a
>> distro that includes Xen would be a better choice.
>
> I use VMWare workstation at work
Ah, that might explain it. Did you know that Vmware has vsphere
hypervisor (ESXi)? :D
>, I use virtualbox on Linux a bit.  I only mention VMWare to note that
I''m used to the concepts of VM''s.  I prefer running *nix,
Gentoo to be precise.
>
> My home server is running a ton of services (subversion, mail, http,
backup, router, ossec, nagios, dns, dhcp..etc) and for sanity''s sake
I''d like to break that up into multiple servers.  I also need a few
windows boxes (various configs, versions).
>
> Goal is to consolidate things into one box, and have a complete backup box
as well.  Thus virtualization.  The XEN ''near bare metal''
performance is what I''m interested in, and definitely into optimizing
every aspect I can which is why I use a source distro.
We actually did some internal benchmark before deploying some servers
with virtualization (mainly for database). The benchmark was using fio
(mainly for randomrw) and sysbench. In short, performance-wise, RHEL5
+ kernel-xen in xen setup has almost the same performance with RHEL5
(native kernel) in ESXi. Since these servers will be managed by people
which are not-so-comfortable using command line tools, and we don''t
need more than 4 core per virtual server, we ended up going with ESXi.

YMMV, so if you''re interested in choices better run your own tests.
>> IIRC the main selling point of server-grade motherborad used to be the
>> ability to use ECC RAM. But now some motherboards for i7 support ECC
>> RAM and SATA III.
>
> Many include system monitoring and alerting capabilities in the BIOS (or at
least used to, it''s been a while since I''ve worked on server
grade hardware).
ah, yes, I forgot about ILOs and such :)
>From my experience though, remote console and remote reboot are the
features mostly used (which, to some extent, can be replaced with KVM
over IP). Alerting capabilites, not so much.
>> Another option would be using SSD as cache, with something like
>> facebook''s flashcache. This setup would reduce the possibility
of data
>> loss (since SSD will only be cache), and have the additional benefit
>> of higher capacity (compared to pure SSD setup), but is also more
>> complex and (depending on how you look at it) "experimental".
>
> Isn''t that what the ''hybrid'' drives are?
Kinda. flashcache lets you mix any kind of SSD of any size with any
kind of HDD, so you have greater control.
> I''d think those would work outta the box, should look just like a
regular drive to the OS I''d think?
They should. If you''ve got one of them I recommend try it out.
flashcache benchmark [1] seems very good, so if the hybrid drives can
come close to that within a reasonable price tag they''d be a hit.

-- 
Fajar

[1]
http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2010/05/10/flashcache-first-experiments/
http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2010/05/18/flashcache-more-benchmarks/

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 22:00:54 +0700 "Fajar A. Nugraha"
<list@fajar.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Braindead <Braindead@diablops.com>
> wrote:
> >> You haven''t said why you want to move away from vmware.
If we know
> >> what your priorities are, we might be able to give better advice.
> >> For example, if you''re used to vmware-style GUI, but want
an
> >> open-source license, XCP might be a better choice. But it you want
> >> something you can tinker, or use bleeding-edge technology, then
> >> starting with a distro that includes Xen would be a better choice.
> >
> > I use VMWare workstation at work
> 
> Ah, that might explain it. Did you know that Vmware has vsphere
> hypervisor (ESXi)? :D
Indeed, but this is for my personal use and cost is a factor.

> >, I use virtualbox on Linux a bit.  I only mention VMWare to note
> >that I''m used to the concepts of VM''s.  I prefer
running *nix,
> >Gentoo to be precise.
> >
<snip.. this is getting long!>
> 
> >> Another option would be using SSD as cache, with something like
> >> facebook''s flashcache. This setup would reduce the
possibility of
> >> data loss (since SSD will only be cache), and have the additional
> >> benefit of higher capacity (compared to pure SSD setup), but is
> >> also more complex and (depending on how you look at it)
> >> "experimental".
> >
> > Isn''t that what the ''hybrid'' drives are?
> 
> Kinda. flashcache lets you mix any kind of SSD of any size with any
> kind of HDD, so you have greater control.
Thanks, I''m not familiar with that.. certainly gives me something to
look into.  Might be what I''m looking for at work, they keep wanting to
''upgrade'' us with SSD''s, however.. I''m the
guy that works all the huge databases... I need TB''s of storage.  Seems
using an SSD for this purpose might be exactly what I need.

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Braindead <Braindead@diablops.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 22:00:54 +0700 "Fajar A. Nugraha"
<list@fajar.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Braindead
<Braindead@diablops.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I use VMWare workstation at work
>>
>> Ah, that might explain it. Did you know that Vmware has vsphere
>> hypervisor (ESXi)? :D
>
> Indeed, but this is for my personal use and cost is a factor.
Last comment from me: did you now Vmware vsphere hypervisor is free? :D

-- 
Fajar

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Hello, uh, Braindead!

In my company, I virtualized 30 servers of mixed genetics (Windows
2003, Windows 2008 R2, Debian, Ubuntu, and Gentoo -- G is fast
replacing D+U here) on XenServer (Free Edition).

The benefit of XenServer would be Citrix''s easy-to-use XenCenter,
which provides you with a graphical console to the Windows VMs.
(Unfortunately, XenCenter is Windows-only).

For your storage, if you are not using a battery-backed server-grade
controller, I suggest using Openfiler to act as a cache.

BTW, Gentoo Linux runs very well paravirtualized on XenServer. I''m
currently writing up a HOWTO on deploying fully paravirtualized Gentoo
VMs on XenServer (including how to install the latest Citrix
xe-guest-utilities).

Rgds,


On 2011-07-12, Braindead <Braindead@diablops.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 21:08:37 +0700 "Fajar A. Nugraha"
<list@fajar.net>
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Braindead
<Braindead@diablops.com>
>> wrote:
>> > My main purpose would be to support my software development and
>> > consulting work.  So I need to be able to run various
OS''s.  I
>> > don''t develop games so no need for any fancy graphics.
 I''m used to
>> > the limitations of virtual machines (use VMWare a lot for dev
>> > purposes) and I''m fairly sure Xen can do everything I
need.
>> >
>>
>> You haven''t said why you want to move away from vmware. If we
know
>> what your priorities are, we might be able to give better advice. For
>> example, if you''re used to vmware-style GUI, but want an
open-source
>> license, XCP might be a better choice. But it you want something you
>> can tinker, or use bleeding-edge technology, then starting with a
>> distro that includes Xen would be a better choice.
>
> I use VMWare workstation at work, I use virtualbox on Linux a bit.  I only
> mention VMWare to note that I''m used to the concepts of
VM''s.  I prefer
> running *nix, Gentoo to be precise.
>
> My home server is running a ton of services (subversion, mail, http,
backup,
> router, ossec, nagios, dns, dhcp..etc) and for sanity''s sake
I''d like to
> break that up into multiple servers.  I also need a few windows boxes
> (various configs, versions).
>
> Goal is to consolidate things into one box, and have a complete backup box
> as well.  Thus virtualization.  The XEN ''near bare metal''
performance is
> what I''m interested in, and definitely into optimizing every
aspect I can
> which is why I use a source distro.
>
>
>> > I expect to have 2-3 virtual machines running most of the time,
>> > possibly 2 working hard (for example restoring a gig+ database
>> > backup on one while programming/doing other tasks on another).
>> >  I''ll be purchasing 2 identical machines one as a backup,
so I
>> > don''t need any extra ''robustness'' that
a server motherboard/system
>> > would provide.  Which leads into the following question.
>> >
>> > Would it make sense to spend extra bucks on a multi processor
>> > motherboard rather than going with a single Core i7 or the like?
 I
>> > think there are i/o bandwidth benefits with multi processor
boards,
>>
>> Is there?
>
> Not sure, which is why I''m askin ;-)
>
>> IIRC the main selling point of server-grade motherborad used to be the
>> ability to use ECC RAM. But now some motherboards for i7 support ECC
>> RAM and SATA III.
>
> Many include system monitoring and alerting capabilities in the BIOS (or at
> least used to, it''s been a while since I''ve worked on
server grade
> hardware).
>
>
>> > however due to a lot of database grinding I tend to do I suspect
>> > that disk i/o is a limiting factor in my case which I''ll
try to
>> > deal with somewhat by RAID0 over 4-5 fast drives.  I
don''t need any
>> > redundancy as all variable data (code and the like) is on remote
>> > servers and already fully backed up.
>>
>> ... which brings another point. If you know you''re I/O-starved
anyway,
>> why not use SSD? Pure SSD implementation can easily give 10-100x IOPS
>> of HDD. And since you say you''ll have an identical machine as
backup,
>> if you''re worried about SSD lifetime, you can have HDD on the
backup
>> machine.
>
> Well, i''d love to...but ;-) My current dev machine has 2TB of
databases
> sitting on it that I may need access to at any given time.  I could move
> them as needed onto SSD however that would take a lot of time much more
than
> just accessing them directly on the slower media.  Might be doable as some
> sort of hybrid setup (some SSD''s, some regular HD''s)
however that would
> likely just confuse me.
>
>
>> Another option would be using SSD as cache, with something like
>> facebook''s flashcache. This setup would reduce the possibility
of data
>> loss (since SSD will only be cache), and have the additional benefit
>> of higher capacity (compared to pure SSD setup), but is also more
>> complex and (depending on how you look at it) "experimental".
>
> Isn''t that what the ''hybrid'' drives are? 
I''d think those would work outta
> the box, should look just like a regular drive to the OS I''d
think?
>
>> > Do folks generally install X11 on Dom0 so they can get a gui
>> > VNC/remote desktop into Windows DomU machines?  Or is there some
>> > other mechanism available?
>>
>> Generally speaking you don''t need full-blown X desktop on
dom0. It can
>> be headless with "minimum" software installed. VNC console of
domU is
>> provided by QEMU, not by X desktop on dom0.
>
> Ah, one question that has a simple answer ;-)
>
> Thanks for the thoughts and suggestions.  I know hardware config is
complex,
> and depends highly on how things are used...
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>

-- 
--
Pandu E Poluan - IT Optimizer
My website: http://pandu.poluan.info/

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users